Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a huge fan of your explanatory power and really enjoy just letting you deal with the uninformed and benighted views and arguments you encounter here. But it seems to me there is a dearth of genuine ability or willingness to try to engage the distinction between the thoughts and the thinker. You and they actually seem to believe that the brain is the thinker but it is merely the processor of inputs to the thinker. Each individual neuronal activation does not think. It is the cumulative product of resonant neuronal activity that manifests as the phenomenon of consciousness in the unified field and actually IS the thinker. That consciousness exists entirely as an EM-like composite field outside the body and brain that produces it. Like everything, it is a manifestation of the unified field but it exists in an EM-like state, not like the more tangible physical manifestations that seem to cloud the judgment of materialists. We experience it and have access to it only after the fact in a delayed form using recorded memory traces. Our actual consciousness exists in a state of being that is beyond the one our physical being experiences and exists within.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
be·night·ed
in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance
overtaken by darkness.
un·in·formed
not having or showing awareness or understanding
unenlightened, uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unlearned, unread, ignorant
it seems to me Gaylen is talking about qualitative direct personal experience, what it feels like to have the experience. what he said (if I understand, and we've asked him to check in on that and let us know) is that feeling is fundamental, and everything else including thought flows from that and is a result of that. and that the feeling of having the direct raw lived experience is what gives meaning to anything. MPD it appears you have omitted that entirely.
not the thoughts
not the thinker
but what it feels like to be the thinker having those thoughts
it's an open question for everyone, including you MPD. Trans and Gaylen and others have already given thoughtful engaged answers, maybe you'll give it a go , how do you distinguish between thinking and feeling, between your thoughts and your emotions?
The feeler is the same composite resonant neural field as the thinker. The body and brain produce the thoughts and feelings that the thinker and feeler experience.
not the definition of dancing. (not an idea)
not watching people dance. (not looking)
not thinking about dancing. (not a thought)
not the mechanics of how to dance (not the physics or structure of steps, rhythm, sequence, movement, technique)
it is how you feel when you are dancing.
for you Trans, it is how you feel and what you experience on the inside when you are listening to some of your favorite music.
gaylen can let us know if that's close or not.
or maybe use some different examples (no more red please we need some different real life examples).
like music. or the dream Trans had last night. or reading a book.
It's not quite that, as they are all what qualia uses to present the images, sounds (even remembered ones) to us (the conscious mind) since qualia must be the product of the unconscious mind for the most part. We don't have think the mechanism of presenting the sights or sound in out heads; we activate the memory and what the mechanism is, does the work instinctively.
The abstract idea of Qualia, like angles don't actually have substance, though an object having angles does, but they exist as predictable working -out results. Like odd never being even, a duplicate triangle will never have different angles, it is against the way reality works, is not the problem.
So the only aspect that bothered me is the mental mechanism, and I think a complex inter-action of particles in the brain COULD in theory produce a complex sensation, or image that we call sight, taste or feeling, much of which is the ancillary work of nerves and instinctive reactions of pleasure or pain that are not the mechanism of experience itself.
It seems to me that the potential for Mystery, Something more or an unknown force which Mystic is no doubt longing to claim is "God" is offset by at least a potential for the physical to explain it in time, which is what (so far as i can remember) what the debate was all about.
...It seems to me that the potential for Mystery, Something more or an unknown force which Mystic is no doubt longing to claim is "God" is offset by at least a potential for the physical to explain it in time, which is what (so far as i can remember) what the debate was all about.
So getting back to what you said about everything being made of the "same base stuff" then is the Mystery for you what that "same base stuff is" or is the Mystery for you how that "same base stuff" can change or be changed into steam and diamonds and thoughts and crowbars and music and poetry?
That is open for anyone to address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Matter takes on very different forms, but is the same stuff at base....
And thoughts are, or so the explanation goes, electricity, and is as real as that and as solid as particles go, as particles that make up diamond. But considerably more precious.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-11-2018 at 07:23 AM..
here is my take on it.
using dance as an example.
[...]
...not the mechanics of how to dance (not the physics or structure of steps, rhythm, sequence, movement, technique)
it is how you feel when you are dancing.
for you Trans, it is how you feel and what you experience on the inside when you are listening to some of your favorite music.
gaylen can let us know if that's close or not.
or maybe use some different examples (no more red please we need some different real life examples).
like music. or the dream Trans had last night. or reading a book.
Yes. You seem to be hitting the target. But just to be clear: Do you see why I keep using red (or blue, etc.) as my examples? Given the format of this discussion, it is simply the most direct way that I can point to something that cannot really be put into words, or typed out as a mathematical formula. If I could directly post sounds, smells, tastes, emotions, thoughts, etc., then I would happily do that. Yes, I can type the word 'red' or I can specify an exact wavelength of light, but Trans will interpret me as talking about something abstract, rather than the direct feeling of seeing red. But, I have to admit, I don't think my approach has worked very well. He still thinks I'm talking about something abstract (see the quote posted below), so thanks for your help in trying different approaches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
It's not quite that, as they are all what qualia uses to present the images, sounds...
I see a possible source of confusion, here, so just for emphasis: Qualia do not "present" anything (other than themselves). Qualia ARE the images, sounds... as directly experienced. You can study my qualia indirectly as my brain processes, but you can't directly experience red for me. (And neither can Mary, the color-deprived neuroscientist, which is why she can never, ever, ever - even in principle - comprehend the full meaning of red unless she, herself, subjectively experiences red. She can't just read descriptions of red, or study formulas, etc., she has to directly experience it for herself in order to fully comprehend the meaning of red. And, so long as she remains color-deprived, what she fails to comprehend about red is NOT trivial. It is the very essence of red. It is the most important aspect of red - it is the aspect of red that all of the abstract descriptions and formulas are based upon.)
Quote:
So the only aspect that bothered me is the mental mechanism, and I think a complex inter-action of particles in the brain COULD in theory produce a complex sensation, or image that we call sight, taste or feeling...
I would say that the complex mechanisms don't "produce" the sensations, these complex mechanisms are what we (in 3rd-person mode), identify as that which constitutes the sensations. The word 'produce' implies a form of dualism that I'm sure you don't want.
Yes. You seem to be hitting the target. But just to be clear: Do you see why I keep using red (or blue, etc.) as my examples? Given the format of this discussion, it is simply the most direct way that I can point to something that cannot really be put into words, or typed out as a mathematical formula. If I could directly post sounds, smells, tastes, emotions, thoughts, etc., then I would happily do that.
Yes, I can type the word 'red' or I can specify an exact wavelength of light, but Trans will interpret me as talking about something abstract, rather than the direct feeling of seeing red. But, I have to admit, I don't think my approach has worked very well. He still thinks I'm talking about something abstract (see the quote posted below), so thanks for your help in trying different approaches.
I B]red[/b]. She can't just read descriptions of red, or study formulas, etc., she has to directly experience it for herself in order to fully comprehend the meaning of red. And, so long as she remains color-deprived, what she fails to comprehend about red is NOT trivial. It is the very essence of red. It is the most important aspect of red - it is the aspect of red that all of the abstract descriptions and formulas are based upon.)
.....
Red doesn't work because it is bland and not personal and everyone basically agrees on it. Something like "a vivid night time dream" or "how it feels when dancing or listening to music" have a stronger emotional element to them, vary from person to person, and can not be proven or validated or seen or felt by anyone else in tbe way you you experience them.
Religion and spirituality deals with things that are very real but people experience in very diffetent ways. So examples that reflect that may be more effective
So getting back to what you said about everything being made of the "same base stuff" then is the Mystery for you what that "same base stuff is" or is the Mystery for you how that "same base stuff" can change or be changed into steam and diamonds and thoughts and crowbars and music and poetry?
That is open for anyone to address.
Yes, but particularly how it works. I am thinking of perception -input along the neurons to the brain where it it turned into a mental phenomenon that not only makes sense to us (like an image of an airliner on a radar -screen) but triggers evolved reaction. sweet is nice. sour is...well it has it's points...Red means ripe fruit, trigger the gastric juices..oops it can also mean 'eat at your peril'. The reactions are instinctive, but we have some educated instincts in there too.
So I'm groping towards a particle mix that reacts to the info being input and produces a particle complex reaction (not to cay chemical) which creates an appropriate experience sensation, the like or dislike reaction being a different function.
This to me is what my problem is about whether you call it Qualia or not. If Qualia isn't that, it isn't a problem. This experience mechanism was the Hard Question for me, even if it isn't the "hard Question" for philosophy.
In fact i have been discussing it with my good Peru mate and he seems to have grasped it quite well and is making some good point that indicate circumstantial evidence (like educated instinctive preference - reactions to the sensation -experiences can be altered by us and by evolution. Which all sounds biological rather than mystical.
Yes. You seem to be hitting the target. But just to be clear: Do you see why I keep using red (or blue, etc.) as my examples? Given the format of this discussion, it is simply the most direct way that I can point to something that cannot really be put into words, or typed out as a mathematical formula. If I could directly post sounds, smells, tastes, emotions, thoughts, etc., then I would happily do that. Yes, I can type the word 'red' or I can specify an exact wavelength of light, but Trans will interpret me as talking about something abstract, rather than the direct feeling of seeing red. But, I have to admit, I don't think my approach has worked very well. He still thinks I'm talking about something abstract (see the quote posted below), so thanks for your help in trying different approaches.
I see a possible source of confusion, here, so just for emphasis: Qualia do not "present" anything (other than themselves). Qualia ARE the images, sounds... as directly experienced. You can study my qualia indirectly as my brain processes, but you can't directly experience red for me. (And neither can Mary, the color-deprived neuroscientist, which is why she can never, ever, ever - even in principle - comprehend the full meaning of red unless she, herself, subjectively experiences red. She can't just read descriptions of red, or study formulas, etc., she has to directly experience it for herself in order to fully comprehend the meaning of red. And, so long as she remains color-deprived, what she fails to comprehend about red is NOT trivial. It is the very essence of red. It is the most important aspect of red - it is the aspect of red that all of the abstract descriptions and formulas are based upon.)
I would say that the complex mechanisms don't "produce" the sensations, these complex mechanisms are what we (in 3rd-person mode), identify as that which constitutes the sensations. The word 'produce' implies a form of dualism that I'm sure you don't want.
Yes, I get that, and will gladly leave the Abstract thing aside, but what I'm getting at is the Qualia - the experiences themselves are - I propose - a mental mechanism done by a complex inter-action of particles in the brain. The atoms of sweeteness or red wavelength are the information input that triggers the signals to the brain, and the instinctive like or dislike reaction is something else. It is the mechanism of making the experience in the brain that I call "Qualia", and it Is the experience.
Red doesn't work because it is bland and not personal and everyone basically agrees on it. Something like "a vivid night time dream" or "how it feels when dancing or listening to music" have a stronger emotional element to them, vary from person to person, and can not be proven or validated or seen or felt by anyone else in tbe way you you experience them.
Religion and spirituality deals with things that are very real but people experience in very diffetent ways. So examples that reflect that may be more effective
Yes, but dreams or thinking or music or hearing it live is like a more complex experience than just looking at red. It is a whole complex of experiences, but essentialy(I would argue) the same mechanism doing it for us.
Yes, but particularly how it works. I am thinking of perception -input along the neurons to the brain where it it turned into a mental phenomenon that not only makes sense to us (like an image of an airliner on a radar -screen) but triggers evolved reaction. sweet is nice. sour is...well it has it's points...Red means ripe fruit, trigger the gastric juices..oops it can also mean 'eat at your peril'. The reactions are instinctive, but we have some educated instincts in there too.
So I'm groping towards a particle mix that reacts to the info being input and produces a particle complex reaction (not to cay chemical) which creates an appropriate experience sensation, the like or dislike reaction being a different function.
This to me is what my problem is about whether you call it Qualia or not. If Qualia isn't that, it isn't a problem. This experience mechanism was the Hard Question for me, even if it isn't the "hard Question" for philosophy.
In fact i have been discussing it with my good Peru mate and he seems to have grasped it quite well and is making some good point that indicate circumstantial evidence (like educated instinctive preference - reactions to the sensation -experiences can be altered by us and by evolution. Which all sounds biological rather than mystical.
I would set aside the word mystical.
because to me mystical is simply something that is not yet seen or understood or grasped. part of something is revealed, part of it is hidden.
I had a friend who came here from another country and had never seen an ATM machine and someone played a trick on her and said they could secretly make money. that's mystical until the process and mechanics are understood.
(what actually happened was this person (who had escaped from a violent oppressive country) did not believe the magic part but was terrified that they would be caught stealing and they would be seized by the police and "made to disappear" for stealing from the government. The first time a cop pulled her over at night she literally thought she was being seized and would be killed. He just gave her a friendly reminder that her tail light was out and sent her on her way with a smile. She said it took her days to get over the terror.)
regarding "sounds biological rather than mystical" well, biological and .̶m̶y̶s̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶̶̶ seeking to understand what is not yet grasped are compatible and inter-related. It is through using, exploring, and becoming attuned to all the parts of our biology that we can begin to understand the messages, data, and information that our biology sends us, how we receive that data, and what we do with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
